Have you ever heard of idiocracy? Seriously though, FLOSS was about transparency one day. Systemd blurs transparency and makes it harder to understand what your system is doing. Also, with systemd enabled, you'll have to accept a pretty lot of default services if you don't want to lose "functionality". Replacing them is deprecated. Choice is made harder.

Have you ever heard of idiocracy? Seriously though, FLOSS was about transparency one day. Systemd blurs transparency and makes it harder to understand what your system is doing. Also, with systemd enabled, you'll have to accept a pretty lot of default services if you don't want to lose "functionality". Replacing them is deprecated. Choice is made harder.

But the majority of the other alternatives also have this flaw, on top of them being very encumbered by cost (and closed nature). Each to their own, if you don't like Linux then more power to you mate, enjoy BSD.

So, basically, end users who don't want to dig into tech will have to defeat and accept the unwelcome "feature". Non-systemd distributions with a certain appeal to non-programmers are rare at best.

Endusers who aren't technically interested, don't have a problem with systemd. For them its even better, because they have one central place to search for logs, control services...For all those people who dont want that, because of the dependencies and i dont know, they should support projects like devuan. https://devuan.org

I like systemd, but I understand the problem, and I understand people who dont want it. But instead of leaving the ship. better go and change something. Even if you only donate some money, it shows that people are interested in it, and if there are enough, something will change.

Even if you only donate some money, it shows that people are interested in it

The problem is that money I donate will most likely go into systemd projects when I donate it to Linux (except Slackware - do they have fundraising at all?). My usual donations go to *BSD and animal recovery projects for this reason. I remember having donated to Mint once - now they joined the systemd ship. :(

People who are most stridently objecting to systemd are people who are convinced that the nightmare scenario is inevitable.........None of those so called nightmare scenario have happened yet and will probably never happen,so why all this fuss about something that is surreal.

How comes If systemd really does turn out to be as bad and awful developers not spending their time working on an alternative.??

Large distributors (Red Hat, especially) want to push systemd into Linux (the kernel), they were successful with Gnome yet (which relies on systemd for some functions). An alternative would not only need man-power - they'd also have to convince those who instructed Lennart Poettering to develop systemd to accept their solution instead.

Canonical tried and turned. If even Canonical doesn't have enough "power" to push their own alternative, who actually would?Of course those scenarios happened yet, widely discussed in FreeBSD forums. Linuxians don't debate much these days?

Linux creator Linus Torvalds is well-known for his strong opinions on many technical things. But when it comes to systemd, the init system that has caused a fair degree of angst in the Linux world, Torvalds is neutral.

Quote from Linus Torvalds

"I don't personally mind systemd, and in fact my main desktop and laptop both run it.

And there's a classic term for it in the BSD camps: "bikeshed painting", which is very much about how random people can feel like they have the ability to discuss superficial issues, because everybody feels that they can give an opinion on the color choice. So issues that are superficial get a lot more noise. Then when it comes to actual hard and deep technical decisions, people (sometimes) realise that they just don't know enough, and they won't give that the same kind of mouth-time.

I wouldn't call "a large pseudo-monolithic module with over 20 known security issues captures every single system call as PID 1" "bikeshed painting", but Linus Torvalds is known for thinking not far enough.I can't see neutrality in the last quote either - where is it?